May I wish all our viewers /readers a happy and joyous Christmas. Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all men. Easy to say but very hard to do. Let us try to be decent to others in future. May those in positions of power pause a little more often to ask themselves "Is this moral?" And may those who point the finger of scorn think whether it could more accurately be pointed at them!
The author of this Blog included
13 comments:
Don't usually agree with Labour but
Yes I must agree with you Rick.
Sorry TC forget the first link this is a link to Rick he hates hunting with dogs.
Rick from Labour
It takes a special kind of bastard to look at that & go "let's hunt it to exhaustion & watch it ripped apart by dogs"
You see TC you know more than most you understand the political nature of the police interest in Roy West.
Roy's views on hunting with dogs are not welcome with his accusers, yet their main supporter is anti blood sports.
So just on that basis alone you know it's political against Roy West.
It's always been a political persecution, Roy's accusers believe they've covered their tracks but they've left many footprints in the sand.
TC Maybe you can answer this searching question because it needs to be asked in the FACE of persecution and injustice.
Why are Roy West's accusers so worried about their pictures of dogs hunting appearing on this site, when they are happy to publish them all over the world wide web?
You can see that they've singled Roy West out for special attention can't you.
TC You see the point I'm getting at here?
If someone else saw what they did and came to the same conclusions that it was cruel and a blood sport, then would they be equally angry with that person/s?
It's becoming apparent to many people that this is a personal "Vendetta" against Roy West.
Their twisted thinking, that, if anyone looks at their website on hunting with dogs, and the same conclusions are reached that it's cruel and a blood sport, they blame Roy West.
Come on now TC if you occupy the world of hunting with dogs, shooting foxes and ducks publishing a book on how to hunt and trap animals.
And all the above, you advertise on the world wide web for all to see.
They don't want it to be called a blood sport it's vermin control.
TC Roy West is not responsible for people's views on hunting with dogs on way or another.
More than one in five offenders who commit a serious crime get off with a caution, official figures have revealed.
They show police handed out more than 18,000 cautions for sexual offences and violent assaults in the last decade.
Some 22 per cent of all burglars, rapists and other violent attackers in England and Wales were given cautions.
A fifth of rapists and sexual offenders avoided court. And 28 per cent of people who committed a violent assault got off with a s2339828 lap on the wrist.
Thieves had a 27 per cent chance of being handed a caution. Police also issued them to 40 per cent of fraudsters and 41 per cent of drug dealers or users.
The shocking figures were prepared by the House of Commons library following a Parliamentary question by Labour justice spokesman Sadiq Khan.
They will fuel concerns that police and public prosecutors are too overwhelmed to be able to properly punish serious crimes.
The information, released by police forces across England, shows there were 992 cautions for ‘indictable only offences’ in 2011. These are crimes considered so serious that they are usually tried at a Crown Court.
A staggering 232 of these were for sexual offences, 137 for violence, 269 for robbery and 18 for burglary. Since 2002, a total of 18,782 cautions were handed out for indictable offences.
Over the last ten years, this means sex offenders were let off 2,018 times. There were 4,364 cautions for violent assaults, 4,204 for robberies and 2,143 for burglaries.
this blog is dead
If you are Black, White, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Arab, whatever, and you've been wrongly accused of something you've not done, then you are a friend of mine.
Roy West
To anonymous.
I have not published several comments concerning Mr Roy West and his court case. This is for several reasons, chief ones being:-
It is always best when a court case is in progress to restrain oneself to simple statements of fact, bearing in mind the matter of sub judice.
It is never a good idea to reveal your plans in advance.
The comments were repetitive.
The facts reported have already been aired in this blog.
This matter is now closed until further notice.
Point 1) It's only repetitive for those having spent 14 weeks in prison for saying the word neighbour.
Point Two it's only sub judice if you are talking about the case in hand
Anonymous @ 10.49.
True. But as we know this case is political and is therefore attracting more attention than a similar case would if it were non-political.
It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility for a "troll" to make a deliberately provocative statement in order to cause serious problems. Accordingly I err on the side of caution.
Post a Comment